MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantile regression using gradient boosted decision trees for daily residential energy load disaggregation

2021· article· en· W4200626580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benoit Delcroix, Simon Sansregret, George L. Martin, Ahmed Daoud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantile regressionSmart meterDecision treeQuantileLinear regressionComputer scienceStatisticsMetering modeElectricityData miningMachine learningEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The building sector is responsible for approximately one-third of the total energy consumption, worldwide. This sector is undergoing a major digital transformation, buildings being more and more equipped with connected devices such as smart meters and IoT devices. This transformation offers the opportunity to better monitor and optimize building operations. In the province of Quebec (Canada), most buildings are equipped with smart meters providing electricity usage data every 15 minutes. A current major challenge is to disaggregate the different energy use from smart meter data, a discipline called non-intrusive load monitoring in literature. In this work, the aim is to develop and validate a potentially generalizable model for all houses that identifies the daily share of each energy use based on building information, weather data and smart meter data. Input features are selected and ordered using an aggregated score composed of the correlation coefficient, the feature importance given by a decision tree, and the predictive power score. Two modelling methods based on quantile regression are tested: linear regression (LR) and gradient boosted decision trees (GBDT). Compared to ordinary least squares regression, quantile methods inherently provide more robustness and confidence intervals. Both models are trained and validated using separate datasets collected in 8 houses in Canada where metering and sub-metering were performed during a whole year. Results on the test dataset indicate a better performance of the GBDT model, compared to the LR model, with a coefficient of determination of 0.88 (vs. 0.78), a mean absolute error of 6.34 % (vs. 8.89 %) and a maximum absolute error between the actual and predicted values in 95 % of the cases of 17.2 % (vs. 23.1 %).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207